Internet Bunkfeatures
WWW sites that provide false, misleading or deceptive information regarding
scientific matters or alleged paranormal or supernatural events. Because
there are millions of such sites, we try to present only the most
egregious and offensive.

Internet Bunk

Milton's book The
Facts of Life is "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete
and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand." --Richard Dawkins

Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science
provides examples of nearly every logical
fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and
accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims.

selective thinking

Let's begin with his version of the "they laughed at Galileo, so I
must be right" fallacy, a non sequitur variation of selective
thinking.

In his book Alternative Science, and on his website under what
he calls Skeptics who declared discoveries and inventions impossible,
Milton lists a number of inventors and scientists who struggled to get
their ideas accepted. Many were ridiculed along the way. But, like many
others who commit this fallacy, Milton omits some important, relevant
data. He does not mention that there are also a great number of inventors,
scientists and thinkers who were laughed at and whose ideas have never
been accepted. Many people accused of being crackpots turned out to be
crackpots. Some did not. Thus, being ridiculed and rejected for one's
ideas is not a sign that one is correct. It is not a sign of anything
important about the idea which is being rejected. Thus, finding large
numbers of skeptics who reject ideas as being "crackpot ideas"
does not strengthen the likelihood of those ideas being correct. The
number of skeptics who reject an idea is completely irrelevant to
the truth of the idea. Ideas such as alien
abduction, homeopathy, psychokinesis,
orgone energy, ESP,
free energy, spontaneous
human combustion, and the rejection of
evolution--all favored by Milton--are not supported in the least by
the fact that these ideas are trashed by thousands of skeptics.

anomalies and coincidences

Like many believers in the paranormal, Milton is quite impressed with
the statistical data of people defending claims that they have scientific
evidence for such things as telepathy or psychokinesis.

Humans have an innate tendency to attribute significance
to anomalies and coincidences. ---John
Allen Paulos

He cites Dean Radin
who defends the ganzfeld experiments and The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.
In both cases, impressive statistics are
used to support the belief in paranormal phenomena. It does not seem to
occur to Milton that there might be alternative explanations for the
statistics. Nor does it seem to occur to him that the defenders of these
claims have not done a very good job of providing compelling evidence of
anything significant. Milton seems to think that the parapsychologists are
rejected because they pose some sort of threat to mainstream science.
There is no threat. If a reasonable explanation of paranormal phenomena is
ever made and compelling evidence is produced to support belief in ESP,
etc., mainstream scientists will jump on the bandwagon as they have in the
past (see below, the examples of continental drift and pre-Clovis
Americans).

ad hominen

Another common fallacy committed by Milton is to attack the motives of
those who criticize and reject "crackpot ideas." Milton
claims

Some areas of scientific research are so
sensitive and so jealously guarded by conventional science that anyone
who dares to dabble in them -- or even to debate them in public -- is
likely to bring down condemnation from the scientific establishment on
their head, and risk being derided, ridiculed or even called insane.*

These allegations may be true, but they are also irrelevant to whether
the "sensitive" ideas are true or not. The charges are not true
in at least two areas where Milton claims it is forbidden to do research:
cold fusion and natural selection (though he uses the
unscientific term "Darwinism" for its polemical value). Research continues at several labs into
cold fusion,
although it is apparently the case that the Department
of Energy considers cold fusion to be forbidden territory. [Note: In March
2004, the Department of Energy said it would review over 15 years of cold
fusion research (what it calls "low-energy nuclear reactions."
The
report came out Dec. 1, 2004. The bottom line? "While significant
progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the
review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers
today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.")] Natural selection,
on the other hand, has been attacked from within
the ranks of scientists almost from its inception. Even Darwin didn't think natural selection
could completely explain evolution (See The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex).
Like many critics of evolution, Milton does not understand natural
selection. But
that is another fallacy.

the straw man

Milton's attack on natural selection is an attack on a position
quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an
idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a
godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a
dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Natural selection implies nothing about the
existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator
who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the
kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is
certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.

more selective thinking

Milton ignores the fact that science has nothing to
gain by believing what is false. Unlike Milton, who sees scientific
beliefs as essentially ideological, scientists as a group have nothing at stake
should the facts of nature turn out to be otherwise than currently
believed. Of course, individual scientists from time to time get stuck in
ideological and idiosyncratic corners, but science as a whole is an
enterprise that is self-correcting. He attacks scientists for not accepting the criticisms of
thinkers and writers who criticize natural selection. But he does not see that
these ideas are rejected either because their authors are barking up the
wrong tree (attacking straw men) or they have not made their case
convincingly. Milton should review the Alfred Wegner case for an example
of how science really works, because it is quite different from his notion
of conspirators guarding the gates of error and rejecting such things as
homeopathy or iridology "because they
threaten to violate the accepted canons of scientific rationalism."*
Milton seems to have little appreciation for the fact that it is easy to
find confirmation for just about any hypothesis and that one must
constantly be on guard against confirmation
bias, self-deception, wishful
thinking, and other psychological hindrances that can lead to pathological science.
Examples abound in his pages, but one of the weakest arguments he has is
given in favor of a Russian astrophysicist, Mark Zilberman, who has found
a correlation
between the 11-year cycle of solar activity and winners of the lottery in
Russia and France. Milton seems to think this is an amazing feat and
indicative of ESP "modulated by external geophysical factors."
He can't understand why scientists are not beating a path to Zilberman's
door.

Alfred Wegener and continental
drift

In The Origin of Continents and Oceans Wegener
proposed the theory of continental drift against the prevailing theory
that the earth was formed by cooling from a molten state and contractions.
"Wegner's mode of reasoning lent itself to criticisms and
counter-arguments. Wegener made assertions that could be checked and
refuted as further evidence came in. He left room for his speculations to
be superseded" (Radner & Radner, 92). Wegener did not have
disciples, but sympathizers who "acted like scientists." Yet,
Wegner's idea that continents move was rejected by most scientists when it
was first proposed.

Stephen Jay Gould notes that when the only American
paleontologist defending the new theory spoke at Antioch college (where
Gould was an undergraduate at the time), most of the audience dismissed
the speaker's views as "just this side of sane" (Gould, 1979,
160). A few years later, all the early critics of the new theory would
accept it as true. Why? Was it simply a matter of Wegener and a few others
jumping the gun by accepting a new theory before the evidence was
sufficient to warrant assent? Were the latecomers 'good' scientists,
waiting for more facts to confirm the theory? Gould's view is that
dogmatic adherence to the view that the ocean floor is solid and
unchanging was the main stumbling block to acceptance of the new theory.
Most scientists rejected continental drift because it did not fit with
their preconceived ideas about the nature of the earth's crust. They
assumed that if continents did drift they would leave gaping holes in the
earth. Since there were no gaping holes in the earth, it seemed
unreasonable to believe that continents move. The theory of continental
drift, says Gould, "was dismissed because no one had devised a
physical mechanism that would permit continents to plow through an
apparently solid oceanic floor." Yet, "during the period of
nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift--that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our
continents--was every bit as good as it is today." Continental
drift was considered theoretically impossible by some, even if it
were physically possible for continents to move. The new theory
could not be made to fit the theoretical model of the earth then
universally accepted.

The theory of plate tectonics was then proposed--the idea
that the continents ride on plates which are bounded by areas where new
crust is being created from within the planet and old crust is falling
into trenches. This provided a mechanism which explains how continents
drift. Continental drift, according to Gould, came to be accepted not
because more facts had been piled up, but because it was a necessary
consequence of the new theory of plate tectonics. More facts were piled
up, though--facts for the new theory of plate tectonics, of which the
theory of continental drift is an essential element. Today, it is taken as
a fact that continents move. Yet, the exact mechanism by which plates move
is still incompletely understood. This area of science will no doubt
generate much debate and theorizing, testing of hypotheses, rejection
and/or refinement of ideas.

The continental drift episode is a good example of how
science works. To someone who does not understand the nature of science,
the early rejection of the idea of continental drift might appear to show
how dogmatic scientists are about their pet theories. If scientists had
not been so devoted to their belief that the earth's crust is solid and
immovable, they would have seen that continents can move. That is true.
However, the fact that Wegener's theory turned out to be correct does not
mean that he and his few early followers were more reasonable than the
rest of the scientific community. After all, Wegener did not know about
plate tectonics and he did not provide an acceptable explanation as to how
continents might move. Wegener argued that gravity alone could move
the continents. Gould notes: "Physicists responded with derision and
showed mathematically that gravitational forces are far too weak to power
such monumental peregrination." Alexis du Toit, a defender of
Wegener's theory, argued for radioactive melting of the ocean floor at
continental borders as the mechanism by which continents might move.
"This ad hoc hypothesis added no
increment of plausibility to Wegener's speculation," according to
Gould (1979, 163).

It is true that the idea that the earth's crust is solid
and immovable has been proved wrong, but Wegener didn't prove that. What
his theory could explain (about rocks and fossils, etc.) other
theories could explain equally well. However, in the end, the idea of
continental drift prevails. It prevails because the dogmatism of
science--the tendency to interpret facts in light of theories--is not
absolute but relative. Gould notes with obvious admiration that a
distinguished stratigraphy professor at Columbia University (where Gould
did graduate work), who had initially ridiculed the theory of drifting
continents, "spent his last years joyously redoing his life's
work" (Gould, 1979, 160). It is hard to imagine a comparable scene
involving any of the scientists admired by Milton.

ad hoc hypotheses

One characteristic of Milton's "alternative"
sciences that distinguishes them from real science is their reliance on ad
hoc hypotheses to explain the mysterious mechanisms behind homeopathy,
psychokinesis, ESP, perpetual motion machines, spontaneous human
combustion, etc. How homeopathy is explained will serve to
demonstrate this point.

Homeopathy is a system of medical treatment based on the
use of minute quantities of remedies that in massive doses produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated. Advocates of homeopathy think that concoctions with as little as one molecule per million can stimulate the "body's healing mechanism."
They even believe that the potency of a remedy increases as the drug
becomes more and more dilute. Some drugs are diluted so many times that
they don't contain any molecules of the substance that was initially
diluted, yet homeopaths claim that these are their most potent
medications! Critics maintain that such minute doses are unlikely to have any significant effect on the body.
The critics base their belief on what they know about the body and how it
works. Homeopaths base their belief on anecdotes
and the metaphysical notion that like
heals like. They have resorted to various ad hoc hypotheses to explain how
a negligible or non-existent amount of a substance could have any effect
on the body. They have appealed to various healing "energies" of
"vital forces" bringing this, that, or the other into
"harmony." The explanation that seems to have the most favor
among "alternative" scientists is, however, the theory of water
memory, the notion that "that during serial dilution the complex interactions between the solvent (water) molecules are permanently altered to retain a
'memory' of the original solute material."*

Not only is there no evidence that such memory occurs,
there is no explanation as to how such an event could occur.
Current chemical knowledge cannot explain how water could
"remember" a molecule that is no longer present or why it would
"remember" only this particular molecule and not the billions of others it
may have interacted with over the past several billion years. Thus, the
expected and reasonable response of the scientific community when
presented with homeopathic studies that support the notion that a
homeopathic potion is effective is to assume that something else besides
efficacy of the potion explains the results. Usually, that something else
is the placebo effect, bias in experimental
design, methodological or calculative errors, or even fraud. There is also
the notion that homeopaths are practicing
a kind of psychotherapy. Until
homeopaths can provide a reasonable explanation for how such diluted
potions can affect anything, it would be unreasonable for the scientific
community to respond otherwise. Do "alternative" scientists
really think that it would be reasonable to abandon hundreds of years of
knowledge and experience, to give up all the established principles of
chemistry, on the chance that someday someone might find a mechanism which
explains how nothing affects something?

If and when the "alternative" scientist finds a
plausible explanation for how actual or virtual non-existent molecules
have an effect on the human body, the scientific community will have to
alter its basic beliefs about chemistry. Until then, however, given the
accomplishments of chemistry, it would be egregiously unreasonable to
throw it all away in the hopes that there really is a mysterious force in
the universe by which homeopathy and all chemical processes work.

the conspiracy theory and the
bias of science
red herrings

Because scientists almost instinctively reject studies, no
matter how well-designed they seem to be, that provide supportive evidence
for "alternative" scientific notions, people like Milton argue
that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to stifle the
truth. They also argue that the scientific community is so blind and
biased that they refuse to consider evidence that upsets their pet
beliefs. These two approaches seem to me contradictory rather than
complementary. Either scientists know the "alternative"
scientists are on to something, so they conspire to stifle them, or the
scientists are just biased and bigoted. In any case, Milton reverts
to attempts at "censorship" by defenders of science as the
evidence for both claims.

Much of what Milton considers to be attempts at censorship
have nothing to do with censorship at all. He raises issues that are red
herrings, e.g., legitimate criticism of the media for promoting junk
science in programs such as the Mysterious
Origins of Man and cases
of scientists who are paranoid about their research or who have been
ostracized by colleagues for their weird ideas.

Milton seems to have a naive view of open-mindedness. He
calls CSICOP the Paradigm Police and
takes a dim view of anyone who criticizes, boycotts, protests, etc. the
promotion of junk science. He seems to think that what is true in politics
ought to be true in science. We should have laissez faire science and let
the most popular view win out. Milton seems to think that we should
determine scientific truth by public vote. He sees no harm in letting pass
egregious abuses of science (such as Mysterious Origins of Man) and
monstrous falsehoods (such as, there is no proof for evolution, which is
just a theory) in the name of "free speech." To rebel against
the bunk promulgated by the mass media, school boards, etc., is, in
Milton's view, a type of oppression.

Even if some scientists call for banning a network from
the airwaves for promoting pseudoscience, there is no systematic attempt
to censor weird ideas by any scientific organization. There is no
persecution of pseudoscientists, no burning at the stake, no secret cabal
blackballing those with new notions about the nature of reality. There is
a requirement that ideas that challenge fundamental ideas in any science
prove their worth. When they do, they will bump out the old ideas. Witness
what has happened recently in American archaeology with regard to
Clovis
and pre-Clovis human settlements. Scientists who were on the outside,
ridiculed by their peers, ostracized, etc., for their ideas about pre-Clovis
inhabitants are gradually getting a strong hearing. Why? Because they
are delivering the goods, i.e., piling up the evidence. The scientists
Milton weeps for are not delivering the goods. If and when they do, like
Wegener, like Albert
Goodyear, they will prevail.

arguments
from ignorance

Another common error Milton makes is to argue that
something is true (such as clairvoyance) because a bad argument was given
to show that it is false. The argumentum ad ignorantiam
can be found at several places on Milton's pages, but I will focus on just
one. Milton defends the significance of unrelated coincidences such as
dreaming of an airplane crash in a foreign country and waking to find that
the news is reporting that there was an airplane crash in a foreign
country. His defense is built on showing that a parapsychologist, Dr.
Richard Wiseman, gave a
false but persuasive explanation of such coincidences as being
expected by the laws of probability.

First, Wiseman's argument is not very persuasive and I
wonder if Milton is being disingenuous here. Second, no matter how many
bad arguments against clairvoyance Milton can produce, they are irrelevant
to whether there is any good positive evidence for such a thing. Wiseman's
argument, as presented by Milton, claims that there are so many air
crashes every day that dreaming of one would be very likely to coincide
with an actual air disaster. A better explanation would be that fear of
airplane crashes is widespread and the number of people who dream of such
things every night is probably very great, so on any given night it is
highly probable that there is at least one person of the six billion on
the planet who dreams of an air disaster in a foreign country.

false labeling

Another common error Milton makes is to mislabel things.
For example, he labels as pseudoscience Richard Dawkins's analogy of the
'evolution' of biomorphs
with the 'evolution' of living creatures. This misclassification exposes
Milton's malevolence (if it is intentional and he knows this example has
nothing to do with pseudoscience but he thinks it will help his
anti-evolution cause) or his ignorance regarding pseudoscience. Milton may
truly believe that Dawkins's analogy is a false analogy, but you might as
well call nuclear physics a pseudoscience for having made an analogy
between planets revolving around the sun and electrons revolving around
the nucleus of an atom. A pseudoscience
claims it is science when it is not. The distinguishing characteristic of
pseudoscience is not logical error, nor is it empirical error. What
distinguishes pseudoscience from science is that the former proposes
theories that cannot be tested in any meaningful way, or if the theory
can be tested, its adherents refuse to accept refuting evidence as valid.
The pseudoscientist would rather reject hundreds of years of
investigation, argument, theorizing, testing, revising, etc., than ever
give up his or her belief, regardless of the evidence. So-called creation
science (CS) is the paradigm of a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience
rarely generates any fruitful discussion about the nature of
things. Science is dynamic and leads to all kinds of
interesting discussions about the nature of things and produces a
seemingly endless array of ideas and techniques, many of which supersede
and supplant earlier ideas and techniques. Creation science should be
classified as theological apologetics, since its main function is to
defend the faith—as the adherents of CS see it—rather than produce
additional knowledge or understanding.

false dilemmas

Milton seems driven by a need to propose false dilemmas.
The basic form of his argument goes like this:

Either we believe my side or we
believe these liars, cheats, deceivers, frauds, pseudoscientists, false
historians, conspirators, and dogmatists. Clearly, the second choice is
unacceptable. Therefore, we should believe my side.

Milton's approach reminds me of Arlen Specter's proposal
to his colleagues during the Clarence Thomas hearings: Who do you believe?
The distinguished gentleman or the slut? (Apologies to Dave Barry, whose
created this caricature question that captures the essence of Specter's
line of questioning.)

There are always third or fourth alternatives to Milton's
proposals because he is so selective in his presentation of evidence and
because he mixes legitimate criticism (e.g. of CSICOP and the Gauquelin
affair, even though CSICOP turned out in the long run to be right about
Gauquelin's data) with misunderstanding. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what
Carl Sagan meant by the following

We've arranged a global
civilization in which the most crucial elements profoundly depend on
science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no
one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for
disaster. (from The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark)

Sagan was lamenting, as he had done many times before, the lack of communication between scientists and the public;
the poor
use of the mass media to convey what science is, does and has yet to do;
and the inadequate job we are doing in educating our young people about
the beauty and wonder of science. Milton thinks Sagan was claiming that
science is an elitist affair, a claim Milton uses as a springboard to
launch into his defense of eccentrics, crackpots and loners as the real
heroes of science, the point of which is difficult to ascertain. It seems
that he thinks that since some great scientists were crackpots, all
crackpots are great scientists. Or, perhaps he means to argue that since
some crackpots did good science, we should never close the door on any
crackpot. However, if science opened the door and took seriously every
crackpot idea that is proposed, nothing of worth would ever get done. The
burden of proof is always on the crackpot, the new kid on the block, the
one who wants to knock off hundreds of years of research, argument,
theorizing, testing, etc., with a single dream. "I have a dream"
might be a wonderful line in politics, but it has no intrinsic value in
science.

It has been said that "Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's
nut that held its
ground." That's one way to look at it.

If you smash a nut with a hammer, nobody will give it any
attention tomorrow. That's another way to look at it.

Richard
Milton responds: At first, Milton
responded with a little piece of disingenuous word juggling,
distortion, and evasiveness with so little substance it was not worth responding to
in detail. Either the man can't read or he intentionally twisted
nearly every criticism I made of his work, save one (he's right
about the DOE's stifling of research on cold fusion). He doesn't seem
to see the difference between "exemplifies" or "seems
to believe" with "says." He says he doesn't "favor
ideas" and that "I present empirical evidence for
consideration by my readers. (As I make abundantly clear, I am a
reporter)." Since he does not say "I believe" this or
that, his website should not be treated as if he were an advocate of
the ideas he presents. When he labels something "Scientists and
inventors who were ridiculed by science" we are supposed to read
this as just a report by a reporter, noting a fact. We are not
supposed to think that he might have some reason for the label or the
selection of scientists he makes. Another label: "Taboo subjects. Investigate these and you're a crackpot."
This label and these subjects are selected for no reason? What Milton
does might be called "alternative" journalism.)

Then, he went whole hog and devoted an entire
page on his website to
debunking me and The Skeptic's Dictionary. One can get a sense of
Milton's maturity by his reference to me as "the nutty professor" and
my views as a "hilarious display of scientific ignorance." Even so, at
least he makes some substantive claims that I can respond to.

Milton writes that Carroll is one of a growing band
of non-scientists (he teaches philosophy) who believe they are
qualified to tell us what we should and shouldn't believe,
scientifically.

I don't tell anyone what to believe, about science or any
other subject. I give reasons and arguments for my claims. The reader
is free to accept my arguments or try to refute them.

That he has no scientific qualifications, or
training, or professional experience, does not deter Carroll from his
conviction that he is an authority on this subject and, in The
Skeptic's Dictionary, he sets out to tell us ordinary people what
we may and may not legitimately think.

Neither of us is a scientist, but so what? I know enough
logic and enough about
causality and properly designed experiments to recognize weaknesses in
design. I can recognize when the data does or does not justify drawing
certain conclusions. Even so, I
don't tell anyone, ordinary or extraordinary, what they may
legitimately think.

As I say in the first lines of the introduction: "The Skeptic’s
Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects
supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term
“occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is
forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to
present a balanced account of occult subjects....Another purpose of
The Skeptic’s Dictionary is to provide references to the best
skeptical materials on whatever topic is covered....[T]he one group
that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My
studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their
beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be
insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative,
unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or
diabolical." Richard Milton's criticisms of my work support this
last claim.

This bogus-guru stance should be warning enough of
what is to follow but, once he warms to his subject, Carroll's
inhibitions disappear completely and he veers from the dogmatic to the
preposterous in a hilarious display of scientific ignorance and
prejudice.

The first item I have listed in my FAQ is the following:

Q. Who made you God? [or, Who made you a bogus-guru?]

A. I
suppose you mean what gives me the right to question beliefs thousands of
years old held by millions of people. You may think it arrogant and
unbecoming to challenge cherished beliefs, especially since many of those
who hold these beliefs are much wiser and more intelligent than I am. The
alternatives are either to accept matters on faith without
thinking about them or to think and critically examine things only until
they begin to conflict with established beliefs and at that point assume I
don't know what I am doing. Neither alternative appeals to me.

I try to understand the limitations of the human mind and base my
beliefs on the best evidence available, using the best methods of inquiry
available, carefully considering the best arguments. All my beliefs are
tentative even though I consider them more likely to be true than false.

I have no preconceived notions about what should be true or false
nor do I begin with a creed and set out to defend it. Like all humans, I
am fallible. I prefer to have my errors corrected, however, rather than
defend them in perpetuity.

Carroll says; "Scientific research . . . has failed to demonstrate
that acupuncture is effective against any disease."

Except for the scientific research that has demonstrated acupuncture
is effective against some diseases and was published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals more than a decade ago, such as Dundee, J.W., 1988, in
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Dundee, J.W., 1987, in British
Journal of Anaesthesia, 59, p 1322. And Fry, E.N.S., 1986, in Anaesthesia,
41: 661-2.

Had Carroll made even the slightest attempt to search the scientific
literature he would have found these and many other references to
well-conducted double-blind trials in which patients experienced
measurable benefits in comparison with the placebo group.

If Milton had read the first three sentences in my article on
acupuncture he would have read: "Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese
medical technique for unblocking chi (ch'i or qi) by inserting needles at
particular points on the body to balance the opposing forces of yin and
yang. Chi is an energy that allegedly permeates all things. It is believed
to flow through the body along 14 main pathways called meridians. " None
of the studies he mentions--nor any others, for that matter--show that
sticking needles into points on the traditional Chinese meridians (which
do not correspond to anything we know about the body) unblocks chi. Nor do
any studies show that any disease is due to blocked chi that knocks yin
and yang out of balance. Yin, yang, chi, and meridian are
metaphysical concepts that have not been, and I doubt ever could be,
tested by science.

Milton knows that I am well aware that sticking needles into people
has physiological and psychological effects. So does giving people
placebos or homeopathic remedies. It may seem like a fine point to Milton,
but I maintain that sticking needles into people does not make what you
are doing traditional Chinese acupuncture. Unless you are
unblocking chi and making possible a balance of yin and yang, you are not
performing acupuncture.

The Skeptic's Dictionary tells us that; "Since cryptozoologists
spend most of their energy trying to establish the existence of creatures,
rather than examining actual animals, they are more akin to psi
researchers than to zoologists. Expertise in zoology, however, is asserted
to be a necessity for work in cryptozoology, according to Dr. Bernard
Heuvelmans, who coined the term . . ."

Had he read Dr Heuvelmans' book, Carroll would have learned that the
discovery of new species is normal science and many are discovered each
year. New species number hundreds amongst insects, and dozens among small
mammals and reptiles. Discovery of large unknown mammals and reptiles is
unusual but certainly not unknown or even rare.

In 2002, for example, respected primatologist Dr Shelly Williams of
the prestigious Jane Goodall Institute in Maryland, tracked and came face
to face with a previously unknown species of great ape at Bili in the
Congo, deep in the African jungle. The creatures stand some 6 feet tall
and weigh up to 225 pounds. Dr Williams reported in New Scientist,
"Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me. These guys were
huge and they were coming in for the kill. As soon as they saw my face,
they stopped and disappeared."

I have no idea what his gripe is here. Is he trying to claim that
Jane Goodall or anyone who discovers a new species is a cryptozoologist?
Or that I am unaware that new species are still being discovered? You
don't have to read Heuvelman's book to know that. A newspaper will do.

Milton seems to have misunderstood my point in comparing
cryptozoologists to psi researchers. Let me try to clarify it. Both
cryptozoologists and psi researchers spend their time trying to prove the
existence of elusive phenomena: Bigfoot, ESP, the Loch Ness Monster,
remote viewing, chupacabras, psychokinesis, and so on.

Carroll says; "Dermo-optical perception (DOP) is the alleged ability
to 'see' without using the eyes. DOP is a conjurer's trick, often
involving elaborate blindfolding rituals, but always leaving a pathway
(usually down the side of the nose), which allows for unobstructed
vision."

The scientific view; Dr Yvonne Duplessis was appointed director of a
committee to investigate Dermo-optical sensitivity. Her conclusion is,
'Controlled studies indicate support for the theory of dermo-optical
sensitivity and perception.' For details click here. [Unfortunately,
the link Milton has--http://www.creatic.fr/cic/B041Doc.htm-- is dead. I
was able to find another source, however at
http://www.sciencefrontieres.com/articles/dermo-optique.htm] (That source
is now dead: Try
http://www.creatic.fr/cic/B043Doc.htm.)

Dr Duplessis's experiments have even led to a possible perfectly
natural explanation. In her conclusions, she says, 'Thus these different
methods show that the thermal feelings induced by visible colors are not
subjective, as it is generally admitted, and that the infrared radiations,
situated in a far infrared range. are acting on every part of the body.
This gives us possible grounds for concluding that also during ordinary
visual perception of colored surfaces a human eye reacts not only to rays
of the visible spectrum but also to infrared radiation emitted by these
surfaces.'

More simply, Dr Duplessis's experiments appear to show that coloured
surfaces reflect energy as heat as well as light and that the eye (like
other parts of the human body) is to some extent sensitive to heat as well
as to light -- a very much simpler explanation than Carroll's baseless
inventions.

It is true that Duplessis claims to have evidence that humans can
sense, with the skin, differences in thermal energy (i.e., heat) allegedly
emitted as invisible radiations from different colors in the far infrared
range. Milton calls her claims "the scientific view." However, Duplessis
is just one in a long line of scientists who have made similar claims and
have been discredited. This history is documented by Martin Gardner in his
articles "Eyeless Vision" and "Dermo-optical Perception: A Peek Down the
Nose." As in so many other cases of extraordinary claims backed by
scientists who claim they could not possibly be duped, the DOP researchers
have been duped time and time again. There have been two distinct DOP
claims. One, and by far the more common, is the claim to be able to see
words, images, colors, and so on while blindfolded. Whenever an expert in
mentalism and
deception is brought in to thwart all methods of peeking through the
blindfold, the amazing DOP feats cease. The other claim involves being
able to detect colors of objects hidden from sight. Some of these, like
Duplessis, even invent the theory of thermal sensitivity of organs like
the eyes or skin, to explain how the feat is achieved.

Duplessis's
Paranormal Perception of Colorshas been available in English
since 1975. There is a reason we haven't seen a great surge in DOP
performances by blindfolded or blind people over the past quarter of a
century. If what she claims were in fact true and had been replicated and
verified in other labs, the blind would now be living in colored
environments where they had learned to "read" walls and halls, doors and
floors, by different colors or colored lights. It didn't happen because
Duplessis's theory has not been accepted by the scientific community.
Perhaps it has not been accepted because of what is known about the amount
of thermal energy given off by different colors on the same material and
what is known about the sensitivity of organs like the eye and skin. The
likelihood that anyone has skin or an eye sensitive enough to pick up the
small differences in thermal energy between say a blue and a red piece of
cloth is near zero. Duplessis says she's proved this but the scientific
community ignored her. Milton thinks she's right and the rest of the
scientific world is wrong.

Gardner discusses several cases of people who were known for their
ability to tell colors by touching things. In every case, when tests were
done under controlled conditions where peeking was impossible, the
subjects failed. In the cases where they succeeded, precautions were not
taken to avoid cheating. Gardner even designed an aluminum box to put over
the heads of such subjects for testing purposes, but few researchers seem
to have used it, preferring their own sloppy protocols to any that might
preclude cheating. If Milton thinks my claim that DOP feats are typically
done by peeking is a "baseless invention," he should read Gardner's
articles or read a book on conjuring or mentalism. I recommend Milbourne
Christopher's
Mediums, Mystics & the Occult (1975). Eyeless vision acts
have been around for a long time.

Carroll says "Edward U. Condon was the head of a scientific research
team which was contracted to the University of Colorado to examine the UFO
issue. His report concluded that 'nothing has come from the study of UFOs
in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge...further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation
that science will be advanced thereby'."

Carroll adds, "So far . . . nothing has been positively identified
as an alien spacecraft in a way required by common sense and science. That
is, there has been no recurring identical UFO experience and there is no
physical evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or landing."

Had Carroll troubled to actually read Condon's report he would have
found this conclusion regarding photographs identified by the report as
'Case 47';

'This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors
investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be
consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object,
silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently
artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses.'

It is perfectly true that Edward Condon concluded that 'further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified' but the reason he
gave is that it is not possible to study fruitfully a phenomenon that
occurs at random. He and his team emphatically did NOT conclude that
"there is no physical evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or
landing" - that is the conclusion of Carroll alone, and it is based purely
on ignorance of the real facts as stated in Dr Condon's report.

Case 47
refers to a movie of a sighting at Great Falls, Montana (lat. 47° 30' and
long. 111° 18') on August 15, 1950. Click
here to see a
frame from this movie. Here is an abstract of this positive ID of a UFO:

"Witness I, general manager of a Great Falls baseball team, and
Witness II, his secretary, observed two white lights moving slowly across
the sky. Witness I made 16mm. motion pictures of the lights. Both
individuals have recently reaffirmed the observation, and there is little
reason to question its validity. The case remains unexplained. Analysis
indicates that the images on the film are difficult to reconcile with
aircraft or other known phenomena, although aircraft cannot be entirely
ruled out. "

Milton meant to refer to
case 46. For
some reason, Milton left out the sentence prior to the one he quotes:
"While it would be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a
fabrication, it appears significant that the simplest, most direct
interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what the witnesses
said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same part
of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a
suspended model." Milton also left out the final sentence of the
conclusion of the report on this case: "It cannot be said that the
evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some
physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of
the original negatives which argue against a fabrication."

What was actually observed? "Witness I reportedly saw a
metallic-looking, disk-shaped UPO. She called her husband, they located
their camera, and he took photographs of the object before it disappeared
in the distance." This occurred about 7:45 PM on May 11, 1950, in
McMinnville, Oregon. The witnesses' testimony was taken 17 years after the
event. The witnesses produced two photographs of the flying saucer.
Photo 1.
Photo 2. I
leave it to the reader to peruse
the entire account.
Decide for yourself whether this is good physical evidence of a UFO flyby.
Or has Milton's enthusiasm for the UFO hypothesis clouded his judgment
once again?

Carroll says; "[Jung's] notion of synchronicity is that there is an
acausal principle that links events having a similar meaning by their
coincidence in time rather than sequentially. . . What evidence is there
for synchronicity? None."

Carroll carefully neglects to mention that the theory of
synchronicity was proposed not by Jung alone but jointly with Wolfgang
Pauli, who was Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton, a member of
Niels Bohr's team that laid the foundations of Quantum Theory and who won
the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945. There thus exists a reasonable
probability that the originator of synchronicity theory knew somewhat more
about science than Carroll does. Asking 'what evidence is there?' for an
explanatory theory that has been advanced specifically to account for
previously unexplained evidence is a question even Homer Simpson would
blush to ask.

Sometimes, even those who ridicule you and stoop to ad hominem
attacks are right about some things. Milton correctly suggests that asking
for evidence for an explanation is at best the wrong question. At worst
it is a
category mistake. I should be asking for evidence of the
explicandum (the thing to be explained), not the explanans
(what does the explaining). I have rewritten two sentences in the Jung
entry to fix this problem.

"What reasons
are there for accepting synchronicity as an explanation for anything in
the real world? What it explains is more simply and elegantly explained by
the ability of the human mind to find meaning and significance where there
is none (apophenia)."

Carroll says; "Legions of parapsychologists, led by such generals as
Charles Tart and Dean Radin, have also appealed to statistical anomalies
as proof of ESP." But, "Skeptics are unimpressed with occult statistics
that assert improbabilities for what has already happened."

Carroll's scientific illiteracy finally comes out into the open
here. Even his fellow 'skeptics' in CSICOP would hesitate to assert that
science may only cite statistics on probability in connection with events
that have not yet happened!

Probability theory deals with the mathematical calculation of the
chances of an event taking place -- regardless of whether the event has
taken place or not. The probability that a tossed coin will land heads is
50-50 or P=0.5. This is as true for a coin that has already been tossed as
it is for one yet to be tossed. If someone were to toss 100 heads in a row
having declared in advance their intention to make this happen, then the
odds against such a series happening normally are so high as to merit
scientific investigation to attempt to determine a cause other than
chance.

In the case of the experiments reported by Dean Radin in the
respected physics journal Foundations of Physics, the odds against the
results obtained in the Princeton Engineering Laboratory coming about by
chance alone are one in 10 to the power of 35 (1 in 1035).

For Carroll to ignore improbabilities of this magnitude is not being
"skeptical" -- it is being in denial.

The two quotes cited by Milton at the top of this comment are
juxtaposed to make them appear to be related to one another. In the
article, I think it is clear that when I bring up the point about being
dazzled about improbabilities regarding what has already happened, I am
referring to arguments regarding the need for a designer of the universe
based on some theoretical notion of odds of the genetic code happening by
chance or odds of the various parts of the solar system, galaxy, or
universe coming together by chance.

Radin, Charles Honorton,
Robert Jahn, Gary Schwartz, and others of like ilk are fond of asserting
things about odds being a trillion to one against chance. Such claims
impress people like Milton. I have written about Jahn's claims in my entry
on the PEAR experiments.

In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found
that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin
1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50%
hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about
51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added]
(141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering
of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51
percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried
to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according
to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data
(1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the
earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one"
(Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star"
performers.

However, according to Ray Hyman, “the
percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02% (Hyman 1989:
152)” in the PEAR studies. And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe
the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data
base. His hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate
becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a
PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet
contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994).
According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person
responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and
found to be groundless" (Radin 1997, 221). His source for this claim is a
1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration,
"Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments"
(5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of
Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace,
1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If
[operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the
"low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring
drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in
scientific results."

The bottom line is that statistical significance is not
equivalent to meaningful or important.

Carroll says; "The CIA and the U.S. Army thought enough of remote
viewing to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on research in a program
referred to as 'Stargate'."

Carroll scorns such trials because of the inaccuracy of some
statements made by the subjects but, scientifically, the question is not
how consistently accurate is remote viewing, but does it exist at all?
There is unequivocal evidence that it does.

A recently declassified CIA document details a remarkably accurate
example, under controlled conditions, of remote viewing of a top secret
Russian base by Pat Price in 1974. To read details of this project
Click
Here. Although Price made a lot of incorrect guesses about the target
he was able to produce, with startling accuracy, engineering grade
drawings of a unique 150-foot high gantry crane with six foot high wheels
running into an underground entrance. The existence of this massive
structure, exactly as described, was later confirmed through satellite
photography.

It's true there is a document in which somebody is dazzled by Pat
Price's description of a crane. To Milton, this counts as "unequivocal
evidence" for remote viewing.

I don't scorn the waste of more than 20 million tax dollars on Stargate on the grounds that there were inaccurate statements made by
remote viewers. Of the thousands of statements made, it would be odd if
many of them couldn't be made to fit many scenarios and be deemed
"accurate" by Milton or the CIA or that one of them dazzled
remote viewing believers. I scorn the experiment because the idea
that humans are clairvoyant ("remote viewing" is just a fancy expression
for clairvoyance) or telepathic has been tested for more than 150 years
and, in the words of Milbourne Christopher “…many brilliant men have
investigated the subject…and they have yet to find a single person who
can, without trickery, receive even the simplest three-letter word under
test conditions.” Dean Radin claims to have provided very strong evidence
for psi in his Conscious Universe. I've commented on the inadequacy
of the work he cites in
many places.

Carroll says; "While no one has ever witnessed SHC, several deaths
involving fire have been attributed to SHC by investigators and
storytellers."

The slightest research would have revealed to Carroll that many
cases of possible SHC were independently witnessed by reliable people. In
some cases, the victims themselves survived to tell about their
experiences. Six survival cases are described in detail
Here.

Cases include London Fire Brigade Commander John Stacey and his fire
crew who reached the scene of a burning man within 5 minutes of receiving
a emergency call, and the case of Agnes Phillips who burst into flames in
a parked car in a Sydney suburb in 1998 and was pulled out by a passer-by.

The researchMilton thinks I should have done is in the book
Ablaze!: The Mysterious Fires of Spontaneous Human Combustion by
Larry E. Arnold, a book which features a blurb from Maury Povich on its
back cover. [Joe Nickell refers to this work as Spontaneous Human
Nonsense.]

The stories that Milton posts on his web site reveal his willingness
to be dazzled by speculations about SHC. It is true that the examples he
has chosen can't be explained by the wick effect because they are all of
cases where the person in flames is come upon within a relatively short
time of being on fire. The wick effect requires hours of slow burning.
However, the evidence that any of these cases is actually a case of
spontaneous human combustion is flimsy at best. As Milton says: "None of
these cases is conclusive evidence for the existence of 'Spontaneous Human
Combustion'."

Many more similar examples of ignorance and prejudice could be
quoted from The Skeptic's Dictionary, but would serve little
purpose. It is already abundantly clear that Carroll's book is no
dictionary but a private agenda, and that he himself is no skeptic but a
knee-jerk reactionary to the new, the unexpected, the ambiguous and the
anomalous.

My agenda is set forth in the first few lines of the introduction to
my book. I am skeptical of the kinds of things Milton accepts and I set
out to provide the best skeptical arguments on those topics with
references to the best skeptical literature I'm aware of. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Robert Todd Carroll is a perfect example of the reason for this
site's existence. Some academic professionals who are meticulously careful
of fact in their normal professional life, suddenly throw off all reasoned
restraint when it comes to so-called "debunking" of what they consider to
be new age nonsense and feel justified in making as many careless and
inaccurate statements as they please because they mistakenly imagine they
are defending science against weirdos.

I can't speak for other skeptics, but I do not believe Milton or
others who believe in the paranormal, the supernatural, or the occult are
"weirdos." Nor do I think that believers are unintelligent. Many of them
are obviously very intelligent, much more intelligent than I am. But being
more intelligent than someone else doesn't make one right. I simply think
Milton and the scientists he admires are wrong about many things and
their arguments are defective.

The reality is that their irrational reaction arises from their own
inability to deal scientifically with the new and ambivalent, even when
(as in the case of dermo-optical perception) there is probably a simple
natural explanation, or when (as in the case of the new Congo primate) it
is simply unexpected and previously unknown to science.

Milton can try to rationalize skeptics' disagreements
with him by
proposing that we suffer from some sort of mental defect, but the fact is
that the skeptics I read and admire try to offer good reasons for their
beliefs and their disbeliefs. Whatever is motivating them is irrelevant to
whether their arguments and explanations are cogent.

This book is a stark warning to every student of science, logic and
philosophy of what can happen when an otherwise rational person goes off
on a personal crusade motivated by his own self-deluding prejudices.

The same might be said of Milton's Alternative Science pages.

Reader comments

You missed the very most important point of all in regards to Richard
Milton's response. Every argument he gives *AGAINST* you are the same
arguments he gives that are used *FOR* all the people he believes in, i.e.
-- you are not a scientist, you don't have all the right qualifications,
etc!! See
here, for example. Richard
describes you exactly with the same words he uses to describe those who are
"persecuted" by science. Wouldn't you just love to make Richard eat his own
words in extreme humility? Well, here is your perfect chance!

AR

reply: I don't think
Richard Milton knows the meaning of humility or irony.